Republicans propose cutting federal pay raises

By
Ed O'Keefe

Would freezing federal worker salaries help cut government costs? House Republicans think so, and are floating the idea as one of several potential government spending cuts.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) recently launched YouCut, an online contest designed to highlight government projects his colleagues consider wasteful. Participants are asked to vote each week on five proposed cuts and the most popular is then introduced by Republicans to the full House for an up or down vote.

This week's choices include cutting President Obama's proposed 1.4 percent pay raise for civilian federal workers from next year's budget. Republicans estimate the raises would cost taxpayers approximately $2 billion in fiscal 2011 and about $30 billion over the next decade.

Their proposal cites an oft-criticized USA Today analysis that found some federal workers are paid more than 20 percent more than private sector counterparts. (But Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag has called the analysis "misleading," arguing federal workers are generally more educated and experienced than private sector workers.)

The Republican proposal would not impact Obama's proposed 1.4 percent military pay raise (in keeping with the GOP's pro-military stance) and their estimates don't include the value of federal health and retirement benefits.

But would freezing pay raises really be a good way to cut government spending? Leave your thoughts in the comments section below or send extended replies to federaleye@washingtonpost.com. W may include your response as an answer to the Federal Worker Page Question of the Week.

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT:
• Study raises questions about military's brain injury assessment tool: Senior Officials have stressed they are doing everything they can to provide the best care possible to injured U.S. troops. But that might not be the case for the tens of thousands of troops who have experienced some form of brain injury.

• Pentagon tries to steer media coverage on Iraq: The military plans to step up efforts to influence media coverage in that country -- as well as here at home.

• Former FBI employee sentenced for leaking classified papers: Federal prosecutors in Maryland have remained mum about exactly what was contained in the classified papers that Shamai K. Leibowitz, 39, gave an unnamed blogger.

The statement that Federal workers make only 20% more then civilians for the same job has been shown to be very conservative, most studies I have read state that the true amount is closer to 50% and the statement that they are more intelligent must have been made in jest, how could a organization that has inside hiring practices, distorted views on there contributions to the public which are laughable inside the beltway coupled with outlandish retirement benefits helping us taxpayers. Congressman Cantor I applaud your actions and wish you the best of luck because they have a powerful union which ensures that they are always protected at the cost of the taxpayers. I say cut there pay 50% and place them on social security instead would be a good start followed by a drastic reduction on number of employees and prohibiting them from having another federal job after retirement or being a advisor as a civilian.

Go ahead and try it....let's see how that brilliant move increases morale and boosts productivity of the federal work force. The problem with you fed-bashers is that like the majority of teabaggers and right wing inbreds you're IQ's are only slightly higher than your shoe size. Quit bashing and get a life.

Basing any legislative action on what "some" people have or do isn't really very smart. By definition, "some" is an exception. Dang right, paulb6, when I retire I'm not planning on getting another federal job.

As someone who worked in the private sector and as a Federal government contractor, I know this to be untrue! I am an IT Manager and took a paycut to work for the Fed. I had always heard how much superior Fed benefits are when compared to the private sector. I found this to no be accurate as well. The cost of my health care and other benefits doubled on average. I reached a point in my life where the stability of Federal employment was more important than the significantly higher wages in the private sector. It was a trade-off I was willing to make for the benefit of my family. So far it's turned out to be a good decision. However, to say Feds earn 20% more than their private sector counterparts is simply NOT TRUE. Therefore, cutting pay raises for Federal workers will only widen the "true" disparity.

Federal attorneys on average make a fraction of what they could make in the private sector. Elite entry level attorneys at DOJ make just over 60,000 dollars per year. Elite entry level attorneys at private law firms across the street from DOJ make 160,000 dollars per year (pre-bonus). With the rising cost of education, cutting pay for Federal workers could lead to a general degradation of the quality of the workforce.

I think Cantor isn't being truthful. The 1.4% adjustment is not a "pay raise", it is a cost of living adjustment (COLA), correct? Pay raises for federal workers are not determined by the president, they are determined by individual supervisors. Personally, I don't see a problem with the proposal, but be truthful about it. Also, some of the highest COLA adjustments occurred during the GW Bush administration and the Republicans weren't trying to eliminate the COLA during those years.

Have to agree with repnice. I've worked in both private and federal sectors and for pay and benefits I'll take the private sector EVERY time. I can't speak for all jobs in the government but I can assure everyone that NO ONE working in IT for the government makes the kind of money you can make in the private sector. When I left the federal world I got a 30K pay raise for the same job and again the benefits were far better. I get the security reason for working for the government but we have 2 paychecks coming in so I didn't need security. Try living on a government workers paycheck and you'll understand why DC's traffic is so awful and why people have to live in Frederick and Fredericksburgh to be able to afford a home.

Knew it would happen. It is always the Federal employees who are targeted for addressing budget deficits. Why doesn't Congress take a pay cut? I would suggest 5% of each Congressman's salary go directly to reduce the budget deficit. Their votes have caused the massive deficit which is still rising. Let them bite the bullet with the rest of us.

Republicans continue their crusade to prove that government is incapable of solving problems by knee capping the government.

The best way to render your government feckless is to kill off its brain cells. Begin attacking worker pay, which is already below industry standards, and you'll see the best and brightest leave government. Then Republicans can talk about how awful Federal workers are, because the best of them are no longer working for the Federal government.

The Republicans are always looking for cheap shots. Federal workers are a captive audience for the Republicans to "balance the budget" on their backs. One exception was Jimmy Carter who decimated the Federal workforce to "balance the budget". The Federal workforce lost the Civil Service Retirement System and was served with the terrible "windfall provision" which penalized the lowest paid workers (mostly women).

Could save some money by not paying Congress when the appropriations bills are overdue. These days it takes them until February or March of the fiscal year to pass the darn budget, so why do we keep paying them when they haven't done their primary job? Sure, it would only save in the range of millions of dollars, but perhaps it would be motivating.

Cantor's only pandering to the libetarian types. If they had their way, we wouldn't even have police or fire protection. In their view, all government services are unnecessary. Its a cost-of-living increase that attempts, but fails, to keep the spending power of an employee's salary the same. Its not a raise. In the last 26 years, these cost-of-living raises have not kept pace with inflation. Don't believe me. Use the consumer price index and convert your current salary to 1984 dollars. You will see that even with your step increases and promotions, you aren't making any more than you did in 1984. Your step increases and promotions didn't even quite cover the cost of inflation. Now that is depressing.

I did a lateral from private to government. The benefit is in the perks not in the salary. $2 Billion is a savings - but so is $200 Billion that is slated to support the pensions, etc for the UNION persons in private industry. Save the 200 and allow the 2 to go through. Quit taking from the worker to support the non-worker.

I'm a fed - I'd be fine with cutting the COLA. In a constrained environment - if it made the difference between cutting key services, programs etc? Absolutely, I could live without the COLA.

But in return for agreeing with the cut, could us feds get just the tiniest bit of respect and acknowledgement that we're not all stupid, lazy and useless? Because while I could live without the COLA, I could also live without the 10 and 11 hour days every day. I would enjoy visiting my family during the holidays (which I haven't done in five years because I can't get the time off around xmas or thanksgiving)...and you know - in a constrained environment I just can't afford to work on Saturdays anymore. I need to stay home; childcare is too expensive on the weekends; gotta balance the budget you know. Oh, and that blackberry that I'm tied to 24/7, answering all those pesky little urgent messages at 11pm at night? I'd like to give that back, thanks. I think that would be fair - you can take my cost of living adjustment back if I can have my quality of life back.

I'm all for freezing federal salaries. If the public sector, who by the way pays those salaries, have to endure freezes and cuts, there's no justification for increases, or indeed the size of many of those salaries and guaranteed benefits packages. As for Peter Orszag; if he made that comment with a straight face, I fully understand why the public thinks there's such a great disconnect in Washington.

if a majority of people work for the federal goverment...
and another large part is unemployed...
and the private sector dissappears, like now...
can it sustain the goverment...
can it sustain the country...
can it...

I am all for cutting appointee salaries. I have personally known far too many political appointees who got their COLA + annual step raise + bonus raises + bonuses under both Bush II and Obama. Ridiculous. One example: a mid-30s staffer with next to no non-govt experience, who spent afternoons on facebook or at the beach. Or posting on facebook while at the beach. And talking about how he was at the beach, at 3:00 pm on a weekday. How do I know? He applied for a job at my company, was "insulted" that the salary range for someone with 7-8 years was "so far below" his appointee salary (seriously--$85-90K is insulting for a non-manager team position?)Well, I was insulted by what I saw when I googled him and found his facebook page, so we insulted him further by hiring someone else.

After nearly 20 years in a prestigious science research lab, I took a pay cut to work in the federal government. Financially, I can withstand not getting a pay raise next year. I think I can even swallow this mentally if our useless, worthless congresspeople of both chambers take a 50% cut in their salaries and make half of their young, unschooled, arrogant, and power-hungry staffers work for free -- everyone knows that a job in Congress, either elected or a staff position, is just a pit stop to that lucrative next job on K street anyway, and that will more than make up having to eat at the (no doubt taxpayer) subsidized cafeterias in the Senate or House Office Buildings.

Trying to bring integrity and character into Congress is like restoring chastity to a brothel. They don't have the guts to do the right thing, and the right thing is to put a cap on all the favors those ratba$tards get from special interest groups, lobbyists, PACs, etc. Lets put a cap -- now -- on all entitlement spending and discretionary programs. Ask federal employees to take a 5% cut and to hell with the unions. If bargaining unit employees are faced with continuing their dues withholdings to a bunch of welfare statist thugs or to use that money to help provide for their families, common sense would win and the unions would dry up. Kill all earmarks. Get rid of that money laundering exercise known as the Department of Education. Oh, and maybe Michelle can do with less personal staff, since many of us in both public and private sector do just fine with none.

I think government should stop bailing out private industry. How about that? If Private Industry produced something and started living within their means -we wouldn't be in this mess. Private industry needs to undertand what "work" means. "Work" is not making up pyramid schemes, lying, stealing and cheating hard working people out of their money so they can roll dice at the craps table (stock market). With zero interest rates, housing subsidies, cash for clunkers, you name the bailout - the private industry (most Republicans) have a lot of nerve complaining.
Take your gifts, make up new games and stop picking on Federal Employees. Look at yourselves - produce something!!

Mcain and Coburn are scrambling around coming up with goofy ideas to offset 120 billion in spending on those stupid wars. Well here is a novel idea, why don't they just start at the source and stop wasting money on stupid wars. The republicans just love to be the universe's policeman and can't resist nation building around the globe. Add up the cost of that once. The piddling 2 billion in savings on federal salaries would be lost in the rounding of the pennies. By the way it isn't really a 2 billion dollar savings. A large portion of that money is returned to the treasury via taxes and contributions to pensions/social security.
For those of you bashing the feds you should spend some of your energy contemplating why the taxpayers are paying the FULL cost of health care (and it is a grand health plan)for all of the current GM employees. Nice gig for them. World's best insurance plan and even though their company is bankrupt they pay zero for health insurance.

Picking on feds again! Nothing new there. That is why the pay parity bill that GHW Bush passed in 1990 has never been fully implemented - every year Clinton, GW, and now Obama purposely allow the bill to expire and we get a negotiated pay raise instead. Lets see, affecting the pay of every fed will only save about 1% of the budget deficit and, as someone already pointed out in the comments, make feds move even further out to live where their salary allows them to. I don't know about any other fed, but my division has not given even tiny bonuses in years! How about instead we increase the tax rate on the Wall Street types and other people making $1 million plus. That would bring in a lot more money. But Republicans are not interested in budget reduction. Otherwise we would see some tax increases. They are interested in firing up their base with the equivalent of feds are welfare queens who waste taxpayers money.